Hello!
As an author of the IDE inspection in question I should mention that
there's slight difference between
for(int i=0; i= 0.
So totally mechanical replacement should work fine, but may produce
some amount of unnecessary Math.max and deciding whether to keep or
remove them requires thinking.
Hi Sergei,
I have created issue [1] to track your enhancement. Please cc me in your
next mails I will be helping you to do the paperwork. Talking about that
did you sign the OCA, [2]?
Thanks,
Vicente
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8222151
[2] https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/
It' seems messages sent from Yandex Mail mobile application are not delivered,
so I repeat it from web app.
---
Hello,
Yes I’m willing to take this
As I understand there is the code imported from 3rd party projects which
shouldn’t be touched.
I know only about jdk.int
I agree that getting rid of the append(concatenation) is a good move
regardless; that’s just wasteful movement. The rest of the patch seems
harmless.
As to applying the refactor more broadly, there’s a risk of recreating the
“append(concatenation)” problem, where the concatenation is hidden
Hi,
From the benchmark data, it seems that the patched code is not a lot
much faster than the original code, plus as Peter mentioned java.base is
not compiled with the -XDstringConcat=inline option, so there is no way
the compiler will generate any indy for the patched code. The new code
is m
Hello Peter,
I was unaware of mentioned detail (thank you a lot for pointing that out, it
made me read the whole JEP280 again) so I've rebenchmarked my changes compiled
with -XDstringConcat=inline.
1) as of Class::getTypeName for Object[] it turned out, that String::repeat
performs slightly be
Hi Sergei,
I don't know if you are aware that the new invokedynamic based
translation of string concatenation expressions introduced in JDK 9
(http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/280) only applies to code outside
java.base module. java.base module is still compiled with old-style
StringBuilder based
I had a brief conversation with Brian Goetz which has left off the mailing list
for some reason. Here's the text:
---
Brian:
These enhancements seem reasonable; these are exactly the cases that
String::repeat was intended for. (This is a “is this a reasonable idea”
revi
